I’m used to changing worlds.
They’re all torture worlds.
I just need to know which one I’m in.
Flannel Jesus is deleting my posts from the 1/3 revisited thread.
My response to motor in that thread was/is this:
You’re using base 12 because you don’t understand placeholders.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c
No contradiction dividing 12 by 3 or 4.
This is a test. Felix may delete this.
I need to know my new reality.
It changes every day.
I need to get my bearings.
Really? Well, what if 12 doesn’t grant its consent to be divided by either one of them?
And what if it does grant its consent to both but neither of them will? 
12 is an eternal form. It’s not sentient.
Iambiguous.
Let me explain this to you very simply.
The more of a conscience you have. The worse the hell you’re in.
That’s how existence exists.
Okay, what if twelve sentient friends don’t grant their consent to someone to be divided into smaller groups? But that someone does it anyway.
Or…
What if they do grant their consent to be divided into smaller groups but that someone then refuses to do it?
How do you distinguish “consent violation” here?
Given what particular context? John has more of a conscience than Jane in regard to Jean’s abortion. But is it in regard to the natural rights of the fetus to live or the political rights of Jean to choose?
And how would you describe hell here? A literal Hell as she would describe it? Or something different.
And most importantly [to me] how exactly would you go about demonstrating this to others such that they are ontologically – teleologically? – obligated to think about hell here exactly as you do?
Iambiguous.
Hell is not ambiguous’.
Okay, if you say so.
Now, back to this:
[b]
[/b]
Hell is self evident. Just like existence itself is self evident.
Okay, if you say so.
Now, back to this:
[b]
[/b]
Iambiguous.
You always avoid what I keep saying.
If anyone is hurting and you have a conscience, you hurt as well.
Solution for all: rest of both worlds.nevermind content when it’s merely a formal arrangement, and never mind the form when and if that double slit argument appears to flail.*
*fish like, out of it >h20<
Simply all consuming, in a menu of irreducibilities.
Now, how could you not have a “condition” and actually believe this?
Note to others:
You tell me, am I avoiding what he is saying on this thread or is he avoiding what I’m saying?
Here, for example:
Now, I figure the reason he avoids it is because he does have a “condition” that predisposes him to avoid seriously exploring points raised to him that challenge his “condition”.
I’m thinking maybe one day he will dive down deep into the points I make and it will finally dawn on him that he actually does have a “condition”.
And get help?
Either that or ecmandu really is just this character he plays here.
Though, sure, this is all just a wild ass guess on my part. What do I really know about him?
I merely hope that someday he will get his act – his plan – together and really, really, really leave. How can that not bring ILP but a little closer to the forum it used to be when I first joined? Along with her and her ilk too. And, of course the fulminating fanatic pinheads.
You know, if “I” do say so myself.
Iambiguous.
I’m going to be very nice to you. Because I can tear your arguments and mind apart without even trying.
You do you. And I’ll do work.
I challenge you to.
Let’s start here:
Your “consent violation” argument may well transcend what I construe to be a “condition”. Sure, it might be a perfectly reasonable frame of mind that I am simply unable to grasp.
So, bring it down to earth. Cite examples from your own live to illustrate it.
Or your take on conscience and hell:
Iambiguous.
In a cruel universe. You have what’s called a ‘defenders mind’.
You’re trying to defend yourself and everyone from all attacks.
I appreciate your effort.
You’re doing it wrong.
You’ll be sent to hell for having ‘no self’ and posting and responding to messages. And I’ve barely even started with you.
I’m going to tell you the correct way to have a defenders mind.
That covers everyone.
Noted.
Now, let’s get back to this:
It needs to sink in as to why you refuse to respond to the points I raise. Why you fiercely avoid going there. My guess: it’s the “condition”.
But what if it’s not?
Then it becomes a matter of whether I have a “breakthrough” moment with you. You actually do attempt to explain to yourself why you think what you do. “Somehow” it begins to dawn on you that you don’t have the capacity to substantiate what you believe even to yourself!!
That eureka moment some objectivists have when my own frame of mind finally puts enough cracks in their own precious Self.
Or, okay, sure, that eureka moment for me when their own “one of us vs. one of them” frame of mind finally puts enough adhesive in my own fractured and fragmented “self”.
Win/win.
Iambiguous.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet.
We need to change the entire structure of existence to solve the consent violation problem. No matter how wise I am and how hard I try, I’m hurting someone.
Same with you.
Does that answer your question?
Nope, no breakthrough here. Just more of the same unsubstantiated claims that one would expect from someone with a “condition”.
Again, I grant you my consent to respond to the points I noted above. Do not…I repeat, do not…violate it!
First off. Hell is not what you think it is. It is supernatural.
What’s very tragic about going through actual hell is that very few people go through it, so you have nobody to commiserate with, and you do everything in your power to prevent others from going there… you literally work your entire life to have nobody to commiserate with!!
I answered your 12 person question. I thought that’s what you wanted me to answer. There is no correct answer. Existence needs to be changed structurally for there to be a correct answer.
Okay, let’s focus in on this.
On four occasions above, I noted how a “consent violation” might play out. In the first you don’t give your consent to someone to do something but they do it anyway. In the second, you do give your consent but then they don’t do it.
Now, how are your posts above…
“Hell is self evident. Just like existence itself is self evident.”
“You always avoid what I keep saying.
If anyone is hurting and you have a conscience, you hurt as well.”
“I’m going to be very nice to you. Because I can tear your arguments and mind apart without even trying.
You do you. And I’ll do work.”
[b]In a cruel universe. You have what’s called a ‘defenders mind’.
You’re trying to defend yourself and everyone from all attacks.
I appreciate your effort.
You’re doing it wrong.
You’ll be sent to hell for having ‘no self’ and posting and responding to messages. And I’ve barely even started with you.
I’m going to tell you the correct way to have a defenders mind.
That covers everyone.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet."[/b]
"We need to change the entire structure of existence to solve the consent violation problem. No matter how wise I am and how hard I try, I’m hurting someone.
Same with you.
Does that answer your question?"
…an adequate answer to my 12 person question?
Think about it, and give yourself the answer. Then come here and give that answer to me.
Iambiguous.
You’ve frustrated me, but I’ve never thought of you as evil.
Now I do.
What part of: “your question cannot be resolved unless existence is structurally changed” do you not understand?
I gave you a perfect answer.